• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Ashton Gray

Why was there a back wound?

105 posts in this topic

The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.)

And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting hit. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ashton,

The back wound is indeed difficult to understand in some respects, TP, among others, has provided very useful documents, discussions and ideas on a deflected, tumbling shot.

I can't though subscribe to the low velocity shot change weapons and fire alternative you have suggested.

Having read your throat wound/Parkland evidence and thesis. I find a lot of your detail very persuasive. I believe, and this has been reinforced here, you posit the throat wound was going to occur, no matter what??!!! I find this difficult to absorb. A predetermined low velocity wound to the back, to accommodate a predetermined wound to throat, which through happenstance also permitted the great lie of the SBT to facilitate the Connally wounds!!!

This is just too precise, too calculated, too given to chance. I appreciate, precision and calculation were undoubtedly required, but to say to a sniper one in the back with this gun and then take the head off with this one in 8 seconds or so???? too big an ask. No?

I like the idea of a semi-automatic rifle. Having witnessed a few semi automatic shoot-outs I have always been amazed by how many shots can be evidenced by tracers, bullet holes etc. compared to how many were seemingly audible at the time. I would, as a witness, always have understated the shots and furthermore duration. FWIW.

Thanks for your invaluable inputs

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton Gray Posted Today, 10:07 AM

The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.)

And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting it. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

A sound theory regarding the back wound. As a slight deviation, I would suggest the possibility that the back wound could have been caused by a ricochet, thus explaining the lower velocity, possible tumbling at entry and therefore resulting in a shallow wound.

An interesting follow-up question would be what element would cause such a ricochet effect? I believe one of the trees in the line of fire would do as potential candidates.

This may have been a theory presented by other Forum members and/or researchers prior to this, so I apologize in advance if I'm re-phrasing someone's theory.

FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Antti Hynonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A sound theory regarding the back wound. As a slight deviation, I would suggest the possibility that the back wound could have been caused by a ricochet, thus explaining the lower velocity, possible tumbling at entry and therefore resulting in a shallow wound.

An interesting follow-up question would be what element would cause such a ricochet effect? I believe one of the trees in the line of fire would do as potential candidates.

This may have been a theory presented by other Forum members and/or researchers prior to this, so I apologize in advance if I'm re-phrasing someone's theory.

FWIW

There has been some discussion (heated, at times) of the possiblility of a richochet off a tree branch, what that would have done to a jacketed bullet, etc., but it's certainly worthy of revisiting.

Part of what led me to this very hypothesis, though, is the relatively clean roundness of the back wound and the corresponding holes in the back of the shirt and coat. None give the impression of the type of damage I think more likely to be done by a tumble, so it would have to have been a very luckily timed tumble indeed to enter that way.

The idea of a richochet off of a tree limb also tends to posit a pretty iffy marksman. I don't think that's the case. I think it was someone very good indeed. I think the back shot was pretty close to where it was wanted—but maybe a little too low.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The back wound is indeed difficult to understand in some respects, TP, among others, has provided very useful documents, discussions and ideas on a deflected, tumbling shot.

Antti brought this up, too, and I find it a stretch for reasons I explained.

I can't though subscribe to the low velocity shot change weapons and fire alternative you have suggested.
I don't know. From my limited shooting I think it might be feasible in the time frame, and could account for the delay between shots. But maybe not. There very well could have been more than one shooter, even in one "nest." I do find the theories involving a small army of shooters pretty silly.
Having read your throat wound/Parkland evidence and thesis. I find a lot of your detail very persuasive. I believe, and this has been reinforced here, you posit the throat wound was going to occur, no matter what??!!!

I don't know that I would go so far as "no matter what." For instance, if there were no vital signs at all, if it conclusively was a case of DOA, perhaps not and there just would be a back wound.

But what was supposed to happen if by any ill luck (to the murderers) no fatal shot were scored? Just chalk it up to a bad day at the office?

And pursuant to that: why did the One-Stop Car Shopper on 9 November 1963 get on the Stemmons freeway and go tearing off in the direction of Parkland Hospital at speeds approximating those the limo took to get there? That's one to give some long reflective thought to.

I find this difficult to absorb. A predetermined low velocity wound to the back, to accommodate a predetermined wound to throat, which through happenstance also permitted the great lie of the SBT to facilitate the Connally wounds!!!
Well, once Connally was hit, I think there were several "explanations" the WC could have opted for, but none of them good—primarily because the murderers had painted themselves into a corner with the bolt-action Mannlicher for the patsy set-up.

Maybe they actually could have sold the back wound/throat wound scenario without trying to skewer Connally three times with it, but I haven't worked out every combination they might have had available, or every argument against this hypothesis.

You know: I could just be all wet.

I appreciate, precision and calculation were undoubtedly required, but to say to a sniper one in the back with this gun and then take the head off with this one in 8 seconds or so???? too big an ask. No?

Well, what I'm hypothesizing doesn't have any of the liabilities of the bolt-action nut-case Specterama Drama. Also, from the several building windows where I feel such shooting might be possible (which I've shown in several other threads), there is no interference at all, all the way down Elm. So I think the time frame is realistic for the back shot, then the delay, then two shots in quick succession (and, really, with time left for more if necessary further down Elm).

And of course this is all mere hypothesis, a bit farther out than I usually go, but I am endeavoring to find a hypothesis that fits the facts rather than bend facts to fit a favorite hypothesis, so I'm very interested to hear anything that argues against this, and will happily watch it go up in smoke if it doesn't have merit.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ashton

I must agree that what you pose is "possible", however I don't think it be the most probable and most likely explanation.

I feel, as I have stated so many times previously on this forum, that JFK's hand and arm actions as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, may be one of the few discernible realities of the extant Z film. I feel that he was reacting to throat trauma which was caused by a wound inflicted by an upward angled, small caliber concealed handgun, which was wielded by an Elm Street spectator / assassin.

I feel that the upward angled bullet penetrated the anterior throat and lodged in the skull or brain. It was consequently later "blown out" by "a" or "several" forthcoming bullet wounds to the head which could have come from either or both directions.

Most people do not realize the lethality and frequency of death by .22 caliber wounds. More deaths are caused within the U.S. by the .22 caliber than any other. The reason for this, and what generally doesn't come to a non-shooters mind,

is that the .22 caliber has enough energy or velocity to enter, but usually not enough to "exit". This results in the .22 caliber bouncing around within ones skull, or body, in a manner similar to a ball in a pin ball machine. This creates massive "INTERNAL" damage, tho not appearing to have done so from outer appearance. This is why the small caliber shot to the head has been favored by most organized crime assassins. Tho the "stopping power" of the .22 is not as great as some larger calibers, its lethality is infamous.

I do not think that the assassin meant for this to be a throat hit......rather a missed "head shot" !

A .22 caliber head wound may be likened to making hamburger meat of the brain.

As far as the back wound, I feel that there can be many conclusions. In that it entered at a downward angle, I feel it possible that it could have been a "missed" or deflected downward "intended" head shot. It also could have been a larger caliber "dud" which could have been caused by faulty powder or bullet loading.

If the "magic bullet" alledgedly found in the hospital, were not a plant, it could have been this "dud" that partially entered the back of the President and ended up within his clothing and later in the hallway where "found".

Proof of an Elm street spectator / shooter or shooters, answers many possible questions such as angles of entry, number of shots (when "sound supressed" handguns are factored in) and the different "earwitness" testimony regarding the number and types of sounds reported.

This of course is merely "my speculation". However for many reasons, it makes a great deal of sense to me.

As little Tommy Jefferson once said about two centuries ago "...every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle" !

Charlie Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...or the shallow back wound was the result of a short-fire / defective round.

Or a blood soluble paralytic fired from the Dal-Tex at Z227, from a firearm

designed by Mitchell WerBell III, following a shot to the throat with a similar

blood soluble round fired from the Black Dog Man position at Z197.

Most scenarios assume the shooters were going for a first-shot/kill-shot,

and the hits to the back and throat were misses.

I disagree.

The plotters had a contingency problem, firing on a subject in a moving car,

an ex-Navy man at that, who might be expected to duck down if struck with

an initial non-fatal round.

The plotters also had to consider the possibility that the shooters, committing

treason as well as murder, might be a tad nervous.

First-shot/kill-shot was not a guaranteed result. Since JFK acted paralyzed

in the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, the simplest explanation is that he was

paralyzed.

So the first two rounds to strike him contained not only a paralytic, but

some kind of fatal toxin, as well, I'd speculate.

This scenario matches the witness testimony, the medical record of the back and

throat wounds, the photographic evidence, and the historical record as to the

existence of this technology.

The technology existed to paralyze a man within two seconds -- why wouldn't they

use it?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cliff

I agree that paralytic elements were available to "Black Ops" practitioners in 1963, however I cannot see it being used in this scenario.

Why the waste of using a paralysing element for a "hit" that could have been a "Kill Shot" ? It would have been none easier to score a direct hit with the former than with the latter. Why the wasted effort and the "extra assassin" ?

Just for the record, I do not believe that Umbrella Man would have called such attention to himself, if there was any way that he could have been implicated in firing "an umbrella shot". The umbrella could easily have been identified as "a weapon", if it were such.

I feel that at times we tend to be more "James Bondish" than what is simpler and more practical.

I personally, tho not at all medically qualified, do not see JFK as having been paralysed. In my eyes he is reacting to a typical "choking" type trauma as I have seen in persons choking on food or a blow to the throat. It is normal that the victim does not move around very much.....he brings arms and hands up to the throat area but "does not" clutch the throat. This is what I see in JFK's reaction !

Perhaps I am too simplistic. However I tend to believe that if it looks, walks, and talks like a

"duck"......then it probably is in fact, a "duck".

Charlie Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Cliff

Hi Charles

I agree that paralytic elements were available to "Black Ops" practitioners in 1963, however I cannot see it being used in this scenario.

Why the waste of using a paralysing element for a "hit" that could have been a "Kill Shot" ? It would have been none easier to score a direct hit with the former than with the latter. Why the wasted effort and the "extra assassin" ?

Because a first-shot/kill-shot was not 100% guaranteed.

What if the shooters only wing the guy with the first shot and he ducks down?

Why wouldn't the plotters account for that contingency?

And if the shooters were going for a first-shot/kill-shot -- why did it take

so long?

Just for the record, I do not believe that Umbrella Man would have called such attention to himself, if there was any way that he could have been implicated in firing "an umbrella shot". The umbrella could easily have been identified as "a weapon", if it were such.
I don't buy the Umbrella Man scenario. The pop-up/pop-down actions of Black Dog Man

are utterly consistent with a shooter, imo.

I feel that at times we tend to be more "James Bondish" than what is simpler and more practical.
What is more practical than insuring a kill shot by paralyzing the target?

It's worked for scorpions for eons...

And this scenario fits all the witness testimony and the medical record.

I personally, tho not at all medically qualified, do not see JFK as having been paralysed. In my eyes he is reacting to a typical "choking" type trauma as I have seen in persons choking on food or a blow to the throat. It is normal that the victim does not move around very much.....he brings arms and hands up to the throat area but "does not" clutch the throat. This is what I see in JFK's reaction !
I think it's "normal" for an ex-military man to hit the deck when he's struck.

I don't see how any well-thought-out assassination would fail to take this into

consideration.

Perhaps I am too simplistic. However I tend to believe that if it looks, walks, and talks like a

"duck"......then it probably is in fact, a "duck".

Charlie Black

What did Jackie say to her husband after he was struck?

"What are they doing to you?"

Not -- "You've been hit!" or "He's been shot!"

She said he looked "quizzical."

Both the shot to the throat and the back were non-fatal, and yet this man

with military training made no move to get out of the line of fire.

He certainly looks paralyzed to me, and maybe I'm too simplistic, but if he

acted paralyzed he probably was paralyzed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cliff

Didn't intend to be offensive. However there might be a reason that my lovely bride is always reminding me that "TACT is not something nailed into a wall".

Cliff, just because one has had military training, does not guarantee that one will duck "quick enough". There are many such in their graves. You should also not forget that the Secret Service entourage, except for two individuals, did not react unti the passage of several seconds. They did not return one shot of gunfire ! Why should JFK react any faster? Do you feel that he thought, "Oh...I have been struck by a paralysing dart and must duck very quickly before the paralysing agent begins to work" ? This "reaction time" was instilled in the SS as a primary consideration. This was by far their most important consideration while assigned Presidential Protection detail, BUT it didn't work! I strongly believe that JFK was so surprised by the throat trauma that he had no idea of what struck him. He certainly didn't hear "that shot". His "quizzical look" as expressed by Jackie has only led me to further conclude that "he never knew what hit him"!

Agent Kellerman only ducked when he reported a "flurry of shots" entering the car.

From what I understand, during the millisecond that it takes to duck, if he absolutely KNEW it to be a gunshot wound, the victim would not have been yet paralyzed and could have reacted! You state "..what if the shooters wing the guy and he ducks" ? He "could have ducked" in either case if he truly had recognition of gunfire. Not trying to be facetious, but he also didn't duck when a Japanese destroyer

rammed PT 109 in the quiet of the night (there was not a gun battle being carried out). The only such incident in U.S. Naval History !

As far as paralysis is concerned, your thinking that he appears paralyzed is more consistent with looking at still frames, rather than the full speed film.

Do you really believe that the shooting planners took it into consideration that they would use a paralysing shot because, as you stated, "it worked for scorpions" ? ?

Cliff, I would venture a guess that you are not a very efficient "duck hunter" !

I remain strongly in defense of my previous posts.

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Cliff

Didn't intend to be offensive. However there might be a reason that my lovely bride is always reminding me that "TACT is not something nailed into a wall".

Cliff, just because one has had military training, does not guarantee that one will duck "quick enough".

Correct. But the plotters would not assume he wouldn't duck, would they?

Are you going to bet your life on (1) a guaranteed first-shot/kill-shot given the

circumstances, or (2) that he would not duck if struck with a non-fatal round?

I wouldn't, not if I had another option that was available to any CIA-connected plotters.

There are many such in their graves.
That's not the point. There was no need for the plotters to make any kind of

assumption when they had the technology to paralyze the guy first.

You should also not forget that the Secret Service entourage, except for two individuals, did not react after several seconds. They did not return one shot of gunfire ! Why should JFK react any faster?

Because he was the one that was hit. Gave him a bit more motivation, doncha think?

Do you feel that he thought, "Oh...I have been struck by a paralysing dart and must duck" ?
I doubt if he knew what hit him, if his wife read him correctly.
This "reaction time" was instilled in the SS as a primary consideration. This was by far their most important consideration while assigned Presidential Protection detail.

The guy getting hit would react faster than a guy guarding him.

Agent Kellerman only ducked when he reported a "flurry of shots" entering the car.

From what I understand, during the millisecond that it takes to duck, the victim would not have been yet paralyzed ! You state "..what if the shooters wing the guy and he ducks ? He "could have ducked" in either case.

Charles Senseny developed blood soluble rounds that paralyzed dogs within 2 seconds,

rendering them unable to bark.

Less than 2 seconds was required for the paralyzation to take effect, and the shot to the

throat stunned JFK sufficiently for this to take place.

As far as paralysis is concerned, your thinking that he appears paralyzed is more consistent with looking at still frames, rather than the full speed film.

However you wish to characterize it....

Do you really believe that the shooting planners took it into consideration that they would use a paralysing shot because, as you stated, "it worked for scorpions" ? ?
No, I think the plotters regarded a first-shot/kill-shot as problematic and addressed

the problem in the most efficient manner possible.

Cliff, I would venture a guess that you are not a very efficient "duck hunter" !

Shoot'n a duck ain't treason -- unless yer at Disneyland... :)

I remain strongly in defense of my previous posts.

Charlie Black

I'm not out to change your mind, to be honest, I'm only arguing a position.

My scenario fits the following medical evidence:

1) shallow back wound

2) small throat entrance wound

3) the nick to the right side of the trachea

4) the bruised right lung tip

5) the hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process

6) and most importantly, the metallic debris field a the point of deepest

penetration.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy the Umbrella Man scenario. The pop-up/pop-down actions of Black Dog Man

are utterly consistent with a shooter, imo.

If a paralytic was fired into the throat, then the UM scenario seems most likely to me. I mean what are the odds that a paralytic was used for which a delivery system including an umbrella gun was available, and that a man happened to be innocently standing there just yards away from the target with an open umbrella, on a sunny day, just as this paralytic was delivered? This would be a rather incredible coincidence.

Re Black Dog Man, the main problem with that figure is that it is blurred beyond recognition. I believe that the photos in which BDM appears were taken just a second or so before the throat shot. If that shot was fired by BDM, he would be in a stationary, i.e. non-blurred position, aiming, in order to fire that shot with any reasonable expectation of hitting the target somewhere. The blurring just argues against it being a gunman at that point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Ashton

I must agree that what you pose is "possible"

Good. I find "possible" a very good place to start after eliminating as much of the impossible as...well, possible.

however I don't think it be the most probable and most likely explanation. I feel, as I have stated so many times previously on this forum, that JFK's hand and arm actions as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, may be one of the few discernible realities of the extant Z film. I feel that he was reacting to throat trauma which was caused by a wound inflicted by an upward angled, small caliber concealed handgun, which was wielded by an Elm Street spectator / assassin.

I've read this hypothesis you've presented several times in the throat shot thread(s).

I started this thread specifically to discuss the back shot, and to consider some sort of rationale (if that word can be perverted enough temporarily to fit the thinking process of debased murderers) for any such back shot having been delivered at all.

However, since I've presented the throat wound (allegedly a "throat shot") as a possible reason for the back shot, I'll address your model of the purported "throat shot" here. But first...

ASIDE: There is an aspect of CIA operations that is one of their most covert, subtle, and insidious tricks, and is pervasive in everything I've ever studied where they are known to be involved: the insinuation of fictions, which by their very discussion, even in attempts to "disprove the negative," perpetuates the fiction. The seeker of fact encounters something that must be addressed and discussed, but that has no reality or substance. The act of attempting to demonstrate its lack of reality and substance lends it reality and substance. The act of describing the no-thing requires describing it only in terms of a thing. That is at work here. But moving on...

Your model of an alleged "throat shot" (to which I do not and will not stipulate) requires a shooter premeditatedly to position himself standing on the north side of Elm near Houston, surrounded by a thick crowd of spectators and traffic police on every side at that location, then take out a hand gun while so surrounded, and while in full view of a group of Secret Service agents on second limo, assume some sort of a handgun shooting position, aim the weapon at the President of the United States in broad daylight, and fire the weapon, creating a loud report and causing the President of the United States to react visibly and dramatically. Then, to continue the model, the shooter walks away without ever having been seen or identified by any eyewitness, and without anyone standing next to him or across Elm from him or across Houston from him having seen this blatant attempted murder happening right in their midst.

Additionally, there is no verifiable physical evidence, not a scrap anywhere in existence, of any shot to the throat at all: not in the shirt, not in the tie, not in the man's throat.

Additionally, there inarguably was at least one shooter positioned somewhere in a hidden and protected location above and behind the motorcade with a high-powered rifle that inarguably shot John Connally in the back. This means that the perpetrators, while having such a sniper in a secured position, yet would have placed a hand-gun shooter in the midst of a very considerable crowd near Elm and Houston—literally surrounded on all sides by spectators, police, and Secret Service agents—to take the very first shot at the President of the United States with what I compute to be about a 98% probability of being immediately caught, which immediately would have compromised every person involved in such a conspiracy to the highest levels.

Without disrespect, I find the proposition sufficiently in the realm of impossibility that I have no interest in pursuing it further. Others may see it differently.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now